• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Teachers at Derby's Muslim school 'ordered to wear hijabs' [W:155, 235]]

Who told you that? There is one interpretation of Islam, that is via the Quran and the Sunnah (sayings and teachings of the Prophet (PBUH)).

the clear, irrefutable evidence in the fact that various interpretations, schools, and branches of islam exist. See Sunni muslims, the shia, Deobondi, Wahhabism, Ahmadiyya, etc.

What we are told about Islam, whether it be an Islamaphobic media or so called "Islamic clerics" is not a misinterpretation but an outright lie.

It's based on the teachings contained in a few books, suffering from the limitations of such media people interpret it in different ways.

the Qu'ran says that a woman should cover herself adequately (as should a man), those are the rules an Islamic school will follow, hardly surprisingly.

And what is adequate is open to "interpretation"

The Quran also states there is "no compulsion in religion", the legitimate scholars of Islam explain that verse as meaning that no one should be forced into the religion.Hence why non-Muslim women being forced to wear a scarf etc is crazy but when these women a#know they will be working in an Islamic school, you have to question their motivations. No contradictions and no misinterpretations. Unless someone creates those to mislead millions of people, which is what many of the powers to be are doing around the world.

The quran is rather contradictory on the point of compulsion, with the idea heavily tied into the concept of Jihad. For example: "The Universiality of Islam provided a unifying element for all believers, within the world of islam and it's defensive-offensive character produced a state of warfare permanently declared against the ouside world, the world of war.

Thus the jiad may be regarded as Islam's instrument for carrying out it's ultimate objetive by turning all people into believers, if not in the prophethood of Muhammad (as in the case of the dhimmis), at least in the belief in god. The Prophet muhammad is reported to have declared "some of my people will ontinue to fight victouriosly for the sake of the truthg until the last one of them will combat the anti-christ". Until that moment is reached the Jihad , in one form or another, will remain as a permanent obligation upon the entire entire muslim community. It follows that the existence of the dar al-harb is ultimately outlawed under the islamic jural order; that the dar al-Islam is permanently under jihad obligation until the dae al-harb is reduced to nonexistence; and that any community which prefers to remain non-islamic-in the staus of a tolerated religous community accepting certain disabilities-must submit to islamic rule and reside in the dar al-islam or be bound as cliants to the Muslim community. The Iniversalism of Islam , in it's all embracing creed, is imposed on the believers as a continuouus process of warfare, psychological and political if not strictly militery"

War and peace in the Law of Islam, pg 64, Majid Khadduri; 1955

Which makes sense if we look at islam as a social and political movement intended to unite various warring tribes in the Arabian Peninsula.

Secondly, Islamic rules applying to non-believers goes back to some of the very earliest days of islam, and examples can be found in the medina compact

"Constitution" of Medina (Dustur al-Madinah)

A brief statement on education and women, the Prophet clearly states that, "Education has been made compulsory upon every Muslim man AND woman". How can that be misinterpreted is beyond me?

Because education is an extremely broad term and can encompass everything from home-economics to an advanced degree in astro-physics ...
 
There are many "posts above". Where are those with "a rather obvious and nauseating agenda of hate"? Don't be shy. We all want to eliminate hatreds in the world so why not speak up?

It is just mimicry,Grant, so don't be too hard on him. Islamists call any resistance to their political ideology an act of "hatred",and so those sympathetic to Islamists do so, too.

I think what lies at the heart of this sort of aggressive dhimmitude is the notion that if they just keep feeding the crocodile, perhaps it will eat them last.
 
Before I ask you any questions or start pointing holes in your use of that link - can you establish that you stand by your use of it and everything to do with that link?
Holes in the link??

To end your ongoing confusion I'll just post the relevant part.


'The most important protests came from Muslim women, who complained that sharia law threatened equal rights for women as it favors men over women. Syed Mumtaz Ali did say that choice between religious or civil arbitration would be up to each family. Ali also said that non-Muslims could serve as arbitrators, and that women could seek independent legal advice during the proceedings. However, the fear that many Muslim women had was that if sharia law was introduced, then their families would force them to accept Islamic arbitration. Further, many of the Muslim women were recent immigrants to Canada from Muslim countries where sharia law is intertwined with the state. They were not in favour of the idea of sharia law in Canada, which is their new homeland. Therefore, any satisfaction that Ali tried to provide Muslim women was rejected. In 2005, Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty rejected the use of sharia law and moved to prohibit all religious-based tribunals in the settlement of family disputes. The Premier said that he would make the boundaries between church and state clearer by banning all faith-based arbitration'.

The sharia episode is important because the Muslims who were in favor of sharia, thought that if other religions could have arbitration then the Muslim community should have that right too. However, the interesting element here is that protest came from within the Muslim community, from ‘liberal’ Muslim groups and Muslim women, who enjoyed equality under arbitration from the state. Therefore, they rejected the use of sharia law. This revealed a division in the Muslim community. There are those who favor sharia law and claim that Islamic arbitration is important for them to gain equal rights in Canada while those who are against it claim that sharia law causes inequality especially towards women.



I'll ask the same question with different words for the sake of clarity - "Is there anything you wish to deny in the link please before I start point things out that you start being dishonest and claim you never meant by posting the link?"
Don't you ever stop??? I provided a link, i didn't write t, therefore I cannot "Deny" anything? Is this you or a result of the inadequate education system?

We've already gone a page or more on your dishonesty regarding your premier Dalton McGuinty and I should advise you I have worked in UK civil court divorce cases as a "McKenzie Friend" to both men and women (I've always stated my history and experience in UK court on this forum so there's another consistency to combat yours and your friends.)

Dalton McGuinty??? Are you still thinking its abut him?


Whats this? I asked you where these "hatreds' were and this is your submission?

You must be baiting now.
 
Last edited:
It is just mimicry,Grant, so don't be too hard on him. Islamists call any resistance to their political ideology an act of "hatred",and so those sympathetic to Islamists do so, too.

I think what lies at the heart of this sort of aggressive dhimmitude is the notion that if they just keep feeding the crocodile, perhaps it will eat them last.

I'm not sure he's even serious. It seems he is being deliberately stupid now in order to bait.
 
I'm not sure he's even serious. It seems he is being deliberately stupid now in order to bait.

It's getting to be a bit like that old record that always got stuck in the same groove and so played the same riff over and over and over again.
 
It's getting to be a bit like that old record that always got stuck in the same groove and so played the same riff over and over and over again.

That stuck 78 must be "Nowhere to Run, Nowhere to Hide" by Martha and the Vandellas.
 
First. Forgive the late reply. I was out of town and I was on my cell. Wrote a long reply...and the phone decided to delete it. :(

Sure, but you were not discussing religion for religions sake, you were attempting to defend it based on the type of scientific culture it generated and it's contributions to science.

The fact is the OP was acting as if there have been no contributions by Muslims, and that they cannot teach the findings of others in their schools. On top of that...who exactly IS contributing to science? Do they actually keep records on the particular religion of scientists? I mean nevermind the fact that modern science would not exist without them.

Appealing to popularity or something's commonality isn't a viable defense for something.

It certainly is when you are discussing something like gender roles. They exist in EVERY culture on Earth. I cannot think of ANY that do not have gender roles.

Secondly, most religions in the west have managed to drop such rigid gender ideals.

What about appeals to popularity not being a defense? Didn't you just say that? It doesn't matter if we have "rigid" or "loose" gender ideals. This is a cultural/religious thing. If you don't want to abide by them...don't participate.

Third, you don't seem to understand the first amendment, which says nothing about religion and religious ideals being free from criticism, but speaks to the state not establishing an official church or form of practice and religion being separate in a modern context.

I understand it fully. The 1st is about Religious Tolerance. I am not talking about the "criticism," but the attempt to justify government involvement in someone's religious teachings is what I am talking about.



In your previous post you wrote "All that said. If this school is funded by the government...then the government has a right to regulate.". And I really see no reason why the state can't demand basic standards from any form of school that it's funding or not, being it one based on the teachings of islam, paganism, or secular. Since there is clearly an overarching public interest in what and how children are taught

Yes. They have a right to regulate. BUT I want you to consider that I am looking at this from an American viewpoint. I personally feel that the government should not be involved. That includes money. What happens here is that when they decide to regulate this school, but not Christian/Jewish/non Islamic religious schools...they are sending a message that they will not tolerate too much divergence from the "social norm" of the majority. They are saying it isn't OK to practice some fundamental beliefs in your religion IF they clash with our way of life.

Personally, this is why I like the the United States system. No funding for any religious schools. It says that nobody gets special treatment. This is really what I was talking about when I mentioned the first Amendment.
 
It is just mimicry,Grant, so don't be too hard on him. Islamists call any resistance to their political ideology an act of "hatred",and so those sympathetic to Islamists do so, too.

I think what lies at the heart of this sort of aggressive dhimmitude is the notion that if they just keep feeding the crocodile, perhaps it will eat them last.

I'm not sure he's even serious. It seems he is being deliberately stupid now in order to bait.

It's getting to be a bit like that old record that always got stuck in the same groove and so played the same riff over and over and over again.

That stuck 78 must be "Nowhere to Run, Nowhere to Hide" by Martha and the Vandellas.

You are debating the poster and not my posts - this is a debate site, I have asked you specific questions related to the subject and am getting ad-hominem instead.
 
You are debating the poster and not my posts - this is a debate site, I have asked you specific questions related to the subject and am getting ad-hominem instead.

Well at least there are none of the "hatreds" you accused others of spreading, only ridicule.

You were given the answers many times. Stop your baiting or have the courtesy to leave the thread.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Posts not directly addressing the OP will result in thread bans and points. This is a zero tolerance warning.
 
A new deadline for the school and governors approaches and many of the points raised regarding the failings of free school and deregulation are addressed in the Channel 4 video linked in this Huffington Post web-page.

What we are seeing is a Government struggling to make a decision regarding its free school as this will have wider repercussions on the whole policy of allowing deregulated schools which do not have to answer to a local authority.

Many of the points raised by professional journalists yet again back up points made by British posters regarding this individual school and the wider free school policy.

The only thing that will save this school now is an unknown "Super-Head" who has a reputation for being called in to save failing schools - we may find out his or her name today.
 
The fact is the OP was acting as if there have been no contributions by Muslims, and that they cannot teach the findings of others in their schools. On top of that...who exactly IS contributing to science? Do they actually keep records on the particular religion of scientists? I mean nevermind the fact that modern science would not exist without them.

If we want to admit ti it or not, cultural and social attitudes have a huge impact on scientific research and endeavors. And in most of the Islamic world, especially the elements enshrined in this school, are outright hostile to such notions.

It certainly is when you are discussing something like gender roles. They exist in EVERY culture on Earth. I cannot think of ANY that do not have gender roles.

No it doesn't. All it does is point to the fact they are widely adopted. Such in no way justifies their existence let alone their enforcement, be it at a cultural or legal level.

What about appeals to popularity not being a defense? Didn't you just say that? It doesn't matter if we have "rigid" or "loose" gender ideals. This is a cultural/religious thing. If you don't want to abide by them...don't participate.

That isn't an appeal to popularity, it's pointing to evidence that gender roles are not inherent to religious practice

I understand it fully. The 1st is about Religious Tolerance. I am not talking about the "criticism," but the attempt to justify government involvement in someone's religious teachings is what I am talking about.

There is nothing in the 1st about me having to tolerate what you or anyone else does in the name of religion, or that what you do with such things being free from criticism. And your citing it was over his use of the word "cretin", not a suggestion of govt involvement

Yes. They have a right to regulate. BUT I want you to consider that I am looking at this from an American viewpoint. I personally feel that the government should not be involved. That includes money. What happens here is that when they decide to regulate this school, but not Christian/Jewish/non Islamic religious schools...they are sending a message that they will not tolerate too much divergence from the "social norm" of the majority. They are saying it isn't OK to practice some fundamental beliefs in your religion IF they clash with our way of life.

A general regulation that applies to all schools (say about segregation or core qualifications), regardless if the are islamic, jewish, or secular is not discriminatory because it applies to all equally and is non-specific. And clearly the state has every interest in maintaining the proper conduct of schools, regardless if they are private or public.

Personally, this is why I like the the United States system. No funding for any religious schools. It says that nobody gets special treatment. This is really what I was talking about when I mentioned the first Amendment.

private schools are still subject to basic standards here
 
Many of the points raised by professional journalists yet again back up points made by British posters regarding this individual school and the wider free school policy.

you claimed this earlier but it was shown the criticism clearly dealt with this school as a central theme, while the posts and posters here have done nothing but the opposite. Instead choosing to focus on the "free school system", without much to say on this school in particular. Even in regards to how particular issues with the lack of regulation allowed it to operate
 
the clear, irrefutable evidence in the fact that various interpretations, schools, and branches of islam exist. See Sunni muslims, the shia, Deobondi, Wahhabism, Ahmadiyya, etc.




It's based on the teachings contained in a few books, suffering from the limitations of such media people interpret it in different ways.



And what is adequate is open to "interpretation"



The quran is rather contradictory on the point of compulsion, with the idea heavily tied into the concept of Jihad. For example: "The Universiality of Islam provided a unifying element for all believers, within the world of islam and it's defensive-offensive character produced a state of warfare permanently declared against the ouside world, the world of war.

Thus the jiad may be regarded as Islam's instrument for carrying out it's ultimate objetive by turning all people into believers, if not in the prophethood of Muhammad (as in the case of the dhimmis), at least in the belief in god. The Prophet muhammad is reported to have declared "some of my people will ontinue to fight victouriosly for the sake of the truthg until the last one of them will combat the anti-christ". Until that moment is reached the Jihad , in one form or another, will remain as a permanent obligation upon the entire entire muslim community. It follows that the existence of the dar al-harb is ultimately outlawed under the islamic jural order; that the dar al-Islam is permanently under jihad obligation until the dae al-harb is reduced to nonexistence; and that any community which prefers to remain non-islamic-in the staus of a tolerated religous community accepting certain disabilities-must submit to islamic rule and reside in the dar al-islam or be bound as cliants to the Muslim community. The Iniversalism of Islam , in it's all embracing creed, is imposed on the believers as a continuouus process of warfare, psychological and political if not strictly militery"

War and peace in the Law of Islam, pg 64, Majid Khadduri; 1955

Which makes sense if we look at islam as a social and political movement intended to unite various warring tribes in the Arabian Peninsula.

Secondly, Islamic rules applying to non-believers goes back to some of the very earliest days of islam, and examples can be found in the medina compact

"Constitution" of Medina (Dustur al-Madinah)



Because education is an extremely broad term and can encompass everything from home-economics to an advanced degree in astro-physics ...

Deobandis are Sunnis and the differences between Shia and Sunni started off being largely political. There are certain religious differences but as I stated, maybe I didn't make my self clear enough, the Quran and the Sunnah is pretty clear on what is required and what is not. If someone chooses to twist it in their own favour, they may do so but it is not representative of Islam, rather the individual. The US constitution has been used to oppress countless millions but the constitution may not be inherently evil, rather those who use it to their own advantage.

And to further your point about Islam somehow going wild with military gains and converting people u quote a book outside of the quran and the hadiths? It proves what one individual may think about Jihad and it's concept but Islam teaches us something different. like I always say, go to the source. We are told quote clearly in the Quran that war must only be carried out in self defence or if it must be a war of aggression it must be against tyranny and oppression but if your enemy surrenders then take their surrender and treat them as prisoners of war. POWs in Islam have more rights than under "modern" and "democratic" or "secular" laws.

Thing is, we can argue this back and forth, I'm sure you will come out with yet another book or some twisted version of the quran and claim that is Islam but you must look at things objectively and I know the vast majority on this forum will now. They already have a preconceived hatred (theer's that word again) of Islam. Nothing, no matter how much evidence there is will change that. Like the Prophet (PBUH) said, "Sometimes, even when you're right in an argument, you should stay quiet".
 
Deobandis are Sunnis and the differences between Shia and Sunni started off being largely political.

Yes, I am aware the Deobandi school is a branch of sunni islam, which is why I wrote "interpretations, schools, and branches" (indicating there are different levels on disagreement to these interpretations), and they all still defer in their interpretation of Islam. So my point still stands.

There are certain religious differences but as I stated, maybe I didn't make my self clear enough, the Quran and the Sunnah is pretty clear on what is required and what is not.[/quote]

if they were, these differences would not exist

If someone chooses to twist it in their own favour, they may do so but it is not representative of Islam, rather the individual. The US constitution has been used to oppress countless millions but the constitution may not be inherently evil, rather those who use it to their own advantage.

Uhh, there are wholly different branches to how the US constitution is interpreted, with entire schools of thought dedicated to analyzing one amendment. hence, the shortcomings of written documents like it and the quran ...

And to further your point about Islam somehow going wild with military gains and converting people u quote a book outside of the quran and the hadiths?

No, I quote an academic text on the subject of law within islam ...

It proves what one individual may think about Jihad and it's concept but Islam teaches us something different.[/quotes]

It's well sourced and offers numerous footnotes and citations from the original documents ...


We are told quote clearly in the Quran that war must only be carried out in self defence or if it must be a war of aggression it must be against tyranny and oppression but if your enemy surrenders then take their surrender and treat them as prisoners of war. POWs in Islam have more rights than under "modern" and "democratic" or "secular" laws.

Hadith 25: “I have been commanded to fight the people until they testify that there is no deity worthy of worship except Allah, and that Muhammad صلى الله عليه و سلم is the Messenger of Allah, and establish the prayer, and pay the zakat. If they do that, their lives and property are protected from me except for the right of Islam, and their reckoning is up to Allah.”

Thing is, we can argue this back and forth, I'm sure you will come out with yet another book or some twisted version of the quran and claim that is Islam but you must look at things objectively and I know the vast majority on this forum will now.

I am. I am looking at it from the perspective of a guy trying to unite a vast number of warring tribes with varying beliefs and ideals.
 
Deobandis are Sunnis and the differences between Shia and Sunni started off being largely political. There are certain religious differences but as I stated, maybe I didn't make my self clear enough, the Quran and the Sunnah is pretty clear on what is required and what is not. If someone chooses to twist it in their own favour, they may do so but it is not representative of Islam, rather the individual. The US constitution has been used to oppress countless millions but the constitution may not be inherently evil, rather those who use it to their own advantage.

And to further your point about Islam somehow going wild with military gains and converting people u quote a book outside of the quran and the hadiths? It proves what one individual may think about Jihad and it's concept but Islam teaches us something different. like I always say, go to the source. We are told quote clearly in the Quran that war must only be carried out in self defence or if it must be a war of aggression it must be against tyranny and oppression but if your enemy surrenders then take their surrender and treat them as prisoners of war. POWs in Islam have more rights than under "modern" and "democratic" or "secular" laws.

Thing is, we can argue this back and forth, I'm sure you will come out with yet another book or some twisted version of the quran and claim that is Islam but you must look at things objectively and I know the vast majority on this forum will now. They already have a preconceived hatred (theer's that word again) of Islam. Nothing, no matter how much evidence there is will change that. Like the Prophet (PBUH) said, "Sometimes, even when you're right in an argument, you should stay quiet".

So, you just admitted that you support the Jihadist terrorist war against the United States.

Having made the claim that our constitution has somehow been used to oppress "countless millions", and then stated you can engage in your terrorist wars of aggression if it is against "oppression", the logic is inescapable that you view Islam as at war with us.


If this is what they teach at British schools, all should be shut down immediately and those teaching this should be deported back to their native countries.
 
And to further your point about Islam somehow going wild with military gains and converting people u quote a book outside of the quran and the hadiths? It proves what one individual may think about Jihad and it's concept but Islam teaches us something different.

In fact the Middle East was once Jewish and Christian (among other tribes), as we can read in the Bible, but they were eventually conquered by Muslims and now these religions are still under attack. Would you deny that forced conversions took place?

like I always say, go to the source. We are told quote clearly in the Quran that war must only be carried out in self defence or if it must be a war of aggression it must be against tyranny and oppression
This tyranny and oppression against women and Gays is just what concerns many outside Islam. Do you see any growing tolerance for these two groups?
but if your enemy surrenders then take their surrender and treat them as prisoners of war. POWs in Islam have more rights than under "modern" and "democratic" or "secular" laws.
Yes, such as the hacking off of their heads.

Thing is, we can argue this back and forth, I'm sure you will come out with yet another book or some twisted version of the quran and claim that is Islam but you must look at things objectively and I know the vast majority on this forum will now. They already have a preconceived hatred (theer's that word again) of Islam. Nothing, no matter how much evidence there is will change that. Like the Prophet (PBUH) said, "Sometimes, even when you're right in an argument, you should stay quiet".
The word "hatred" is being bandied about a lot on these boards but in fact, when it comes to the treatment of women, Gays, and those of other religions, I find Islam to be disgusting, and its followers seriously brainwashed. But that's just one free man's opinion.

As we have seen from this Islamic school, and elsewhere, Muslims must be constantly monitored to assure that equal treatment and respect is given to all students.
 
In a desperate attempt to return the thread to topic...

News in Derby suggests the super head I mentioned is chairman of the Greenwood Dale Trust Foundation - a group which is currently managing around 20 failing or failed schools and Academies in the midlands.

Last month, Michael Gove praised the Foundation saying "It is also important to recognise that the local authority in Derby has a poor record of helping to challenge under-performing schools, and that outside providers such as Barry Day, of Greenwood Dale, have done far more to improve education in Derby than the local authority has ever done."

This was challenged very quickly the next day in parliament by the MP for Derby who showed figures from the local authority schools. In another part of the attack by Mr Gove's department - Lord Nash (he who wrote the school warning it that it faced closure) also claimed that Free Schools now had higher Ofsted inspection ratings than local authority funded schools. This statement was also challenged in Parliament as the figures were apparently inaccurate.

Let no British poster be fooled by the lengths this government will go to to protect Free Schools - including the horrible failures such as Al-Madinah - and make sure the free school project continues.
 
In a desperate attempt to return the thread to topic...

News in Derby suggests the super head I mentioned is chairman of the Greenwood Dale Trust Foundation - a group which is currently managing around 20 failing or failed schools and Academies in the midlands.

Last month, Michael Gove praised the Foundation saying "It is also important to recognise that the local authority in Derby has a poor record of helping to challenge under-performing schools, and that outside providers such as Barry Day, of Greenwood Dale, have done far more to improve education in Derby than the local authority has ever done."

This was challenged very quickly the next day in parliament by the MP for Derby who showed figures from the local authority schools. In another part of the attack by Mr Gove's department - Lord Nash (he who wrote the school warning it that it faced closure) also claimed that Free Schools now had higher Ofsted inspection ratings than local authority funded schools. This statement was also challenged in Parliament as the figures were apparently inaccurate.

Let no British poster be fooled by the lengths this government will go to to protect Free Schools - including the horrible failures such as Al-Madinah - and make sure the free school project continues.

Well said, this is a policy of dogma not rational pragmatism.
 
Looks like Al-Madinah is facing shut-down, the specialist group asked to take over have said they won't and another of Michael Gove's "Free Schools" has been ordered to shut down.

Questions are being asked now as the whole "Free School" policy is throwing up some abject failures. 25 pages into a muslim bashing thread and it's still clear the focus of the problem was the policy itself which let down more than just a bunch of muslim kids in Derby - it's let down kids in other schools in the UK.

Nice bit of humble-pie eating here in an interview with Michael Gove where he admits things have gone wrong.

I'll even quote myself here as someone challenged my findings a few pages ago -

A new deadline for the school and governors approaches and many of the points raised regarding the failings of free school and deregulation are addressed in the Channel 4 video linked in this Huffington Post web-page.

What we are seeing is a Government struggling to make a decision regarding its free school as this will have wider repercussions on the whole policy of allowing deregulated schools which do not have to answer to a local authority.

Many of the points raised by professional journalists yet again back up points made by British posters regarding this individual school and the wider free school policy.

The only thing that will save this school now is an unknown "Super-Head" who has a reputation for being called in to save failing schools - we may find out his or her name today.
 
" The government has ordered the closure of a failing free school for the first time after education inspectors found standards there unacceptably poor.

The Discovery New School in Crawley, West Sussex, has had its funding pulled after failing to make the required improvements.

Schools Minister Lord Nash wrote to governors saying the school must close next April.

The Department for Education said most free schools performed well.

Free schools are state-funded but independently run schools, often set up by parents, teachers and academy chains. There are 174 in England, two of which, including the Crawley school, have been found to be providing inadequate standards of education... "

BBC News - Failing free school is ordered to close
 
Back
Top Bottom